Why do so few Christians love Jesus?

Originally posted by whodey
Ok, so lets say I am the hypocritical liar you judge me to be. In fact, I am in your church and I am a church leader and I openly live in such a way. Should I be dealt with? Should I remain in a position of authority while blowing off any correction from the church for living that way?

Let's say you're a glutton instead.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's say you're a glutton instead.

Ok. So lets say I am a glutton and the church I attend views this as a sin and I openly am a glutton as well as ednorse this activity. What should be done if anything?

Originally posted by whodey
My position is, or at least what I attempted to show, was that ANY openly sinful lifestyle must be dealt with if seen as such within the church. It just so happens that the issue was homosexuality that was in question. Take adultery, for example. When Jesus showed mercy to her he told her to go and sin no more. Adultery was "judged" by Christ to be a sin ...[text shortened]... erefore, was he being judgemental in telling the woman she was sinning and to not sin anymore?

I though sin was about free will. If we're forced to not sin our free will is being violated. That's the argument generally used to explain why God doesn't force us.

Originally posted by whodey
Ok. So lets say I am a glutton and the church I attend views this as a sin and I openly am a glutton as well as ednorse this activity. What should be done if anything?

Knightmeister must have written a dozen or more posts trying to explain this to you as did I and a few others. I have no reason to believe that you're about to give up your bigotry. Bigots rarely change.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Knightmeister must have written a dozen or more posts trying to explain this to you as did I and a few others. I have no reason to believe that you're about to give up your bigotry. Bigots rarely change.

I have been judged to be a bigot. What is my fate? :'(

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Knightmeister must have written a dozen or more posts trying to explain this to you as did I and a few others. I have no reason to believe that you're about to give up your bigotry. Bigots rarely change.

Knightmeister is an idiot. If it's knightmeister vs whodey here, I'll take whodey any time.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I though sin was about free will. If we're forced to not sin our free will is being violated. That's the argument generally used to explain why God doesn't force us.

The arguement is over those who join a church or who are in a position of authority within a church. When joining a church one is told upfront, or should be, what the church believes and the basic tenants of their theology. Joining a church is an endorsement of these beliefs and often one sings a paper saying they have read and agree what the church stands for and the code of conduct that they are expected to uphold. Then when one breaks this agreement what is to be done?

No where is free will violated, rather, one is merely held accountable for what they have agreed to or they can move on.

Edit: If the church does not expect its members to uphold a code of conduct or certain tenants of theology when they join then they should then not scream foul when they offend those within the church regarding any conduct whatsoever.

Originally posted by whodey
The arguement is over those who join a church or who are in a position of authority within a church. When joining a church one is told upfront, or should be, what the church believes and the basic tenants of their theology. Joining a church is an endorsement of these beliefs and often one sings a paper saying they have read and agree what the church stands ...[text shortened]... olated, rather, one is merely held accountable for what they have agreed to or they can move on.

What should be done is whatever is written into the contract as a penalty for breaking the contract. That is, whatever the person signed up for knowing possible consequences ahead of time. What those consequences are should be up to the individual church or denomination, if the denomination is centralized and organized like the Catholics.

Originally posted by whodey
The arguement is over those who join a church or who are in a position of authority within a church. When joining a church one is told upfront, or should be, what the church believes and the basic tenants of their theology. Joining a church is an endorsement of these beliefs and often one sings a paper saying they have read and agree what the church stands ...[text shortened]... olated, rather, one is merely held accountable for what they have agreed to or they can move on.

You just can help lying can you? For someone who claims to be a follower of the God of Truth, you have absolutely no regard for truth.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What should be done is whatever is written into the contract as a penalty for breaking the contract. That is, whatever the person signed up for knowing possible consequences ahead of time. What those consequences are should be up to the individual church or denomination, if the denomination is centralized and organized like the Catholics.

Not all include a "penalty section" that lists what will be done, however, I think it to be a good idea.

It reminds me of the Ten Commandments. When they were first handed down. There were not penalties for violating them, or at least not at first, rather, they were simply expected codes of conduct.